Fantastic Four (2015)

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

With all the disastrous decisions being made, I highly doubt it.

I think that "Hope for the Best, but Prepare for the Worst" is acutely appropriate for this new FF project...

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

I think that "Hope for the Best, but Prepare for the Worst" is acutely appropriate for this new FF project...

I can't even reach that level, personally. So many creative decisions have steered this a great deal away from the source, and I've hit the point of actually wanting it to fail. Marvel has done a great job with minding their own properties since the first "Iron Man" film, but Fox has sacrificed things more than once with less-stellar entries such as "Spider-Man 3" and "X-Men: The Last Stand". In my honest opinion, its past time for Marvel to get them all back, studio politics be damned.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Miles Teller foot-in-mouth Epic Fail:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...t-i-was-735401

Well technically Teller was referring to Divergent, not Fantastic Four. Although if he truly felt that miserable while filming the former, I can't imagine what he went through during Insurgent given the awfulness of the book and how moronic the arc of his character Peter was.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I can't even reach that level, personally. So many creative decisions have steered this a great deal away from the source, and I've hit the point of actually wanting it to fail. Marvel has done a great job with minding their own properties since the first "Iron Man" film, but Fox has sacrificed things more than once with less-stellar entries such as "Spider-Man 3" and "X-Men: The Last Stand". In my honest opinion, its past time for Marvel to get them all back, studio politics be damned.

Yeah 'cause Marvel never made a bad movie oh wait Iron Man 2 and Thor exist. Well Marvel surely never made an average movie then oh wait Iron Man 3, Incredible Hulk and Thor the Dark World exist. And Fox never made a great comics movie oh wait X-Men, X2, The Wolverine, First Class and Days of Future Past all exist. And Sony never made a good comic movie oh wait Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 exist.

Take the Marvel Studios fanboy goggles off, man. Also take the supreme comic book loyalty glasses off, these are films. At least wait for a freaking trailer before you go all nutty on this movie.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

Well technically Teller was referring to Divergent, not Fantastic Four. Although if he truly felt that miserable while filming the former, I can't imagine what he went through during Insurgent given the awfulness of the book and how moronic the arc of his character Peter was.

The guy's just graceless. He got a chance to be a part of a big franchise, acting opposite his good friend Shailene Woodley. No one forced him to audition for the part -- though ironically, he was perfect for it.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah 'cause Marvel never made a bad movie oh wait Iron Man 2 and Thor exist. Well Marvel surely never made an average movie then oh wait Iron Man 3, Incredible Hulk and Thor the Dark World exist. And Fox never made a great comics movie oh wait X-Men, X2, The Wolverine, First Class and Days of Future Past all exist. And Sony never made a good comic movie oh wait Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 exist.

Take the Marvel Studios fanboy goggles off, man. Also take the supreme comic book loyalty glasses off, these are films. At least wait for a freaking trailer before you go all nutty on this movie.

I like all the MCU entries so far, though I admit the "Iron Man" sequels did take getting used to. Fox has done some great work with Spidey and the X-Men, but both prior "Fantastic Four" movies were less than stellar, particularly the second one.

My overall point is this: if you're not going to stick with the source as close as possible, don't make the film...period.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I like all the MCU entries so far, though I admit the "Iron Man" sequels did take getting used to. Fox has done some great work with Spidey and the X-Men, but both prior "Fantastic Four" movies were less than stellar, particularly the second one.

My overall point is this: if you're not going to stick with the source as close as possible, don't make the film...period.

(Spidey is with Sony.)

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

(Spidey is with Sony.)

My bad; I'm typing up multiple posts at once.

Anyway, I still think it would be best for all Marvel properties to be brought back home, especially those which have failed under other studios' leadership. The only reason "Daredevil" worked was because director Mark Steven Johnson was allowed to release his own cut on DVD; to date, its also the only version available on Blu-Ray. "Spider-Man 3" was the result of executive interference, particularly Avi Arad. Gavin Hood made a decent attempt with "Origins", but some of the characters were too flat or outright pointless. We all know how "The Last Stand" turned out after Singer left, and that was also mostly due to studio interference.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

My overall point is this: if you're not going to stick with the source as close as possible, don't make the film...period.

Marvel Studios don't even follow that advice. Also I couldn't disagree with it more. These are movies, not comic books.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Marvel Studios don't even follow that advice. Also I couldn't disagree with it more. These are movies, not comic books.

They follow it much closer than Fox or Sony ever have, that's for sure. I understand that creative liberties are unavoidable in adaptations, but the Fantastic Four do not consist of twenty-somethings galore. Johnny and Sue are supposed to be blood related, not adopted. Reed is supposed to be 40-45, and Ben the same. Sue is supposed to be around 30, and Johnny 20-25. Ben and Reed never worked for the Feds, and Reed had already married Sue by the time they went into space. Victor von Doom was a tyrant from a country called Latveria, not a billionaire industrialist with too much time on his hands. Sue was brave but also loyal, not some manipulative man-hater trying to pressure Reed, who also never hid his work from Sue. The only thing the prior films got right were Johnny and Ben, but this one will screw that up too.

[toddly6666]

Whenever this thread gets near the top of the Movie Threads with new posts, does anyone else automatically think, "Oh no, now what have they done?" right before clicking into the thread.

[aiman04]

This could be good, if they change the title.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by aiman04

This could be good, if they change the title.

...along with the character names, their powers, costume designs, and any other references to the comics. Then, just maybe, it might earn its budget back at the box office.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

They follow it much closer than Fox or Sony ever have, that's for sure. I understand that creative liberties are unavoidable in adaptations, but the Fantastic Four do not consist of twenty-somethings galore. Johnny and Sue are supposed to be blood related, not adopted. Reed is supposed to be 40-45, and Ben the same. Sue is supposed to be around 30, and Johnny 20-25. Ben and Reed never worked for the Feds, and Reed had already married Sue by the time they went into space. Victor von Doom was a tyrant from a country called Latveria, not a billionaire industrialist with too much time on his hands. Sue was brave but also loyal, not some manipulative man-hater trying to pressure Reed, who also never hid his work from Sue. The only thing the prior films got right were Johnny and Ben, but this one will screw that up too.

I didn't even watch the previous movies, nor have I ever read the comics, so it's impossible for me to address these things. I'll agree with you that you need to honor the source, but I also think you have to make changes to better suit the film format sometimes. Where the line is there will depend on the person, obviously.

I just think at the end of the day a good movie is a good movie. I don't care about comics, so if I think a movie is a good movie that's the end-all-be-all for me, I'm not going to leave the theater, see comic fans complain and then change my mind and say it's a bad movie.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I didn't even watch the previous movies, nor have I ever read the comics, so it's impossible for me to address these things. I'll agree with you that you need to honor the source, but I also think you have to make changes to better suit the film format sometimes. Where the line is there will depend on the person, obviously.

I just think at the end of the day a good movie is a good movie. I don't care about comics, so if I think a movie is a good movie that's the end-all-be-all for me, I'm not going to leave the theater, see comic fans complain and then change my mind and say it's a bad movie.

I'm not an extreme purist by any means, but the source material should always be the backbone of any adaptation, where its from comics, novels, film remakes, etc. I grew up reading Fantastic Four comics as a kid, which wasn't that long ago (about 20 years). My prior post detailed the basics which formed the "creative spine" of every story. My problem with Josh Trank's film is that he appears to have ignored every one of those aspects. You can name a character Reed Richards or Johnny Storm, but that's not enough; every trait has to cooperate, or the character falls apart. I have plenty of complaints about the prior films too, one being the fact that Ioan Gruffudd was too young back then for Reed (ironically, he'd probably be perfect now).

I strongly recommend you watch the first film directed by Tim Story; he didn't get everything right at all, but Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis were spot-on as Johnny and Ben.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

My overall point is this: if you're not going to stick with the source as close as possible, don't make the film...period.

Period? Really?

A lot of very good movies would have failed that test. Blade Runner, The Shining, The Wizard of Oz, pretty much every Dracula movie ever made...

And that's just direct adaptations. What about Shakespeare adaptations like West Side Story or Throne of Blood or Forbidden Planet? Should those filmmakers have stuck with the source as close as possible?

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

Period? Really?

A lot of very good movies would have failed that test. Blade Runner, The Shining, The Wizard of Oz, pretty much every Dracula movie ever made...

And that's just direct adaptations. What about Shakespeare adaptations like West Side Story or Throne of Blood or Forbidden Planet? Should those filmmakers have stuck with the source as close as possible?

I never saw "Blade Runner", "The Shining", "West Side Story", "Throne of Blood", or "Forbidden Planet". As such, I can't comment on them. The only film based on Shakespeare I ever saw was the 1996 "Romeo & Juliet", and it wasn't very faithful apart from the language styles.

As for the "Dracula" novel, its been adapted so many times that most don't even bother with it anymore. I actually read it a few years ago, and the structure Bram Stoker used makes a direct translation to the screen very difficult. He constantly moves back and forth, using journal entries from various characters.

"The Wizard of Oz" is pretty faithful to the book, with two major exceptions: the Emerald City actually being green, and Dorothy's visit being a dream at the end. They changed the latter for the recent reboot with James Franco and Michelle Williams, but that was more of an "inspired by" situation anyway.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I never saw "Blade Runner", "The Shining", "West Side Story", "Throne of Blood", or "Forbidden Planet". As such, I can't comment on them. The only film based on Shakespeare I ever saw was the 1996 "Romeo & Juliet", and it wasn't very faithful apart from the language styles.

As for the "Dracula" novel, its been adapted so many times that most don't even bother with it anymore. I actually read it a few years ago, and the structure Bram Stoker used makes a direct translation to the screen very difficult. He constantly moves back and forth, using journal entries from various characters.

"The Wizard of Oz" is pretty faithful to the book, with two major exceptions: the Emerald City actually being green, and Dorothy's visit being a dream at the end. They changed the latter for the recent reboot with James Franco and Michelle Williams, but that was more of an "inspired by" situation anyway.

This supposed argument is starting to sound like "whatever you think is faithful to the book is what's acceptable as a book-to-cinema adaptation."

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

This supposed argument is starting to sound like "whatever you think is faithful to the book is what's acceptable as a book-to-cinema adaptation."

There is a very real difference between taking a select few creative liberties with an adaptation, and throwing out every core attribute of the characters besides names and abilities, for arbitrary reasons.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I'm not an extreme purist by any means, but the source material should always be the backbone of any adaptation, where its from comics, novels, film remakes, etc. I grew up reading Fantastic Four comics as a kid, which wasn't that long ago (about 20 years). My prior post detailed the basics which formed the "creative spine" of every story. My problem with Josh Trank's film is that he appears to have ignored every one of those aspects. You can name a character Reed Richards or Johnny Storm, but that's not enough; every trait has to cooperate, or the character falls apart. I have plenty of complaints about the prior films too, one being the fact that Ioan Gruffudd was too young back then for Reed (ironically, he'd probably be perfect now).

I strongly recommend you watch the first film directed by Tim Story; he didn't get everything right at all, but Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis were spot-on as Johnny and Ben.

You're missing the point. I get that as a fan of the comics them sticking closer to the source material is important to you. I'm saying a good movie is a good movie. Your comic book love might make you dislike a good movie because it's not what you expected or wanted, even though it's good. I have no such issue, I never read the comic and thus a good movie is simply a good movie.

I can't pretend a good movie is bad because of source material I never read.